The TV Series discussion thread

December 27th, 2012, 08:37

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
My distaste has nothing to do with the age of the cast. Primarily, I think the movie shits all over Star Trek and what I think it should be about - and what Roddenberry wanted it to be. It completely ruins the characters - especially Spock, which happens to be my favorite character in all of Star Trek. Also, they've reduced Kirk to an arrogant idiot with zero redeeming features, and the less said about their version of Scotty the better.

The fact that the movie has a crappy villain and a beyond stupid plot doesn't help.

Then again, I actually care about Star Trek - because it's one of the very, very few shows that has broken new ground time and time again. It's not just entertainment, and I think I've learned and grown more as a person from the ideas of the show (TOS/TNG in particular) than any other piece of entertainment out there.

I didn't perceive anything that terrible about Nero or the plot. At least not compared to the earlier films. It's certainly not my favorite, but I just don't see it as being that bad.

But let's be honest.. Star Trek has never been about great movies, and some of the older films were laughably bad. For example, Abrams' plot was certainly not worse than that of 'The Voyage Home'.

But then you're obviously far more passionate about Star Trek than I am. I consider myself a fan, but not so much that I've watched every series. In fact, TOS and TNG are the only ones I watched on a regular basis. I've actually seen very little of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Deep Space 9 is sorta like Babylon 5 - in that it's a big story arc taking place on a space station, but it's quite inferior to Babylon in that way. I'd say it's very good overall, but it can't touch TNG. It's infinitely superior to Voyager and Enterprise, though.

I must admit I don't think I ever watched it beyond the first season, and it sounds like it gets a lot better after that. If I ever have the time to start watching old series' again, maybe I'll give it another chance.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I didn't perceive anything that terrible about Nero or the plot. At least not compared to the earlier films. It's certainly not my favorite, but I just don't see it as being that bad.

Well, to each his own. To me, he was completely devoid of personality and his plan made no sense whatsoever - and that whole "red matter" thing was just a joke.

But let's be honest.. Star Trek has never been about great movies, and some of the older films were laughably bad. For example, Abrams' plot was certainly not worse than that of 'The Voyage Home'.

I disagree. I actually liked The Voyage Home as a deliberate light movie, even if the plot was silly. I also liked the message it was sending, however naive it may have been. But the movie stayed true to the characters and the show. I also think the humor is great, I have to say. It also has some of the best Spock scenes - especially in the beginning.

The Abrams movie isn't a deliberate light movie, but rather a brainless action mess that disrespects not only its characters but Star Trek as a whole.

But no, the movies have never been all that great - with a couple of exceptions. But, in the past, they've stayed true to the characters and the show in general. The Abrams movie was something entirely different. It had nothing to do with the show or the characters. It was just a piece of crap that might have worked with another name and as a low-brow sci-fi timewaster.

But then you're obviously far more passionate about Star Trek than I am. I consider myself a fan, but not so much that I've watched every series. In fact, TOS and TNG are the only ones I watched on a regular basis. I've actually seen very little of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.

I'm very passionate about the concept behind Star Trek and some of the characters. TOS had a LOT of crap in it (it's around 60-70% crap) - and TNG is probably ~30% crap. But I do care a great deal about what it tried to do and how it provoked a good dose of thought and discussion. It's so incredibly rare - and sci-fi shows almost never go there anymore.

I must admit I don't think I ever watched it beyond the first season, and it sounds like it gets a lot better after that. If I ever have the time to start watching old series' again, maybe I'll give it another chance.

The first season is terrible, truly. However, already in the second season - things start to change. You definitely should give it another go.

I'm going to keep my reply short as I'm using my phone for this…but yeah, to each his own. With the exception of Wrath of Khan, and perhaps The Final Frontier, the movies starring the cast from TOS were terrible. Especially by today's standards.

As far as Abram's film not having anything to do with the show or characters- You do understand that was supposed to be an alternate universe, right?

Years ago I watched all treks from originals to the newest enterprise. I didint think voyager high but it did get better in the end.

If you want to really watch scifi there are not many high quality series. Most are B-class and thats something you have to get used to with this genre. I think the start of voyager dips to C though atleast.

Currently I think Ive watched most scifi series that have ever existed. I have some doctor who left and firely which I wanted to save last so I have somthing good to watch in the end.

Its kind of silent in the scifi front. Im not aware of any new series coming anytime soon. The old reliable ones like star trek or stargate have died away.

I did manage to get my gf to watch that spielberg series about dinosaurs and timetravel. Too bad it lasted for only one season.

— “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” - Maya Angelou
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke

Originally Posted by zakhal
Its kind of silent in the scifi front. Im not aware of any new series coming anytime soon. The old reliable ones like star trek or stargate have died away.
.

Yeah sci-fi needs a poster series like fantasy has game of thrones and horror has walking dead. Some people were speculating that we may get a BSG series set in the first cylon war but that is pure speculation based on the success of the new webisodes - although certainly not inconceiviable. I think another star trek series/reboot would also be on the cards if the movie franchise maintains its current momentum.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm going to keep my reply short as I'm using my phone for this…but yeah, to each his own. With the exception of Wrath of Khan, and perhaps The Final Frontier, the movies starring the cast from TOS were terrible. Especially by today's standards.

Well, I really like Search for Spock, The Voyage Home and especially The Undiscovered Country. Final Frontier, while having interesting ideas, is what I would call a terrible film.

As for the "standards of today" - you clearly have a much higher opinion of them than I do. I think the standard is much, much lower than those films I mentioned above.

As far as Abram's film not having anything to do with the show or characters- You do understand that was supposed to be an alternate universe, right?

Yeah, I know the pathetic plot mechanism to smooth over the transition and ignore canon. The problem is that the characters are the same and yet they're nothing like them - except for Bones which is the only acting highlight in the film. A smarter way would have been to go with a new cast - but then I suppose they couldn't profit from utilising the old names.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The first season is terrible, truly. However, already in the second season - things start to change. You definitely should give it another go.

Yeah if someone has trouble getting into the series I've actually recommended entirely skipping the first season before. If you can't be bother to slog through the awfulness that is the first season, then its better to skip it and start on the second season because from that point on it gets better and better and dramatically so.

All you really need to know from the first season are a few key things. The wormhole, which is inhabited by incredibly powerful energy beings that have a strong tie to Bejor, is connected to the gamma quadrant. For reasons not yet revealed they have chosen Commander Sisko as their emmisary which gives him some leverage in negotiating with the Bejorans as they worship the wormhole entities as prophets. Little is known about the gamma quadrant except the entire region appears to be under the control of a single authoritarian regime referred to as the Dominion. That's about it - knowing that you can start with the second season and skip most of the goofiest stuff. Also, you can usually skip a Jake Sisko episode but some of them are actually really good in later seasons (only one or two though.)

I am not a particularly die-hard trek fan as the almost saccarinly sweet and perfect nature of the Federation at times seemed boring to me. If the one-dimensionality of the federation has always been slightly dissapointing to you in Treks then you will be pleasantly suprised as DS9 goes on as it does at times get incredibly dark by Star Trek standards.

It does at times also aknowledge and deal with some of the overuse of tropes in past star treks - particularly "holding back the phlebotinum". When the Federation goes to war for its survival, things like replicators transporters and their cloaking ban all come up in interesting ways. Ever find it odd that the Federation didn't use transporting self-replicating munitions or sniper rifles that transported physical projectiles inside their targets? Well turns out they do think of using those things. Ever wonder why they didn't use fleet combat tactics, fighter wings, and engage in battles using dozens of capitol ships flanked by support vessels? Well they do now.

The key to appreciate the old Trek (the REAL Trek) - is to understand that it's not saying: Here is our future. It's saying: This COULD be our future.

Some people believe we could one day have a future resembling that, and some people don't. But the show isn't trying to paint a realistic picture as much as it's trying to paint a hopeful and optimistic picture. Something to strive for that just might be attainable.

In the 60s - the vision was quite ahead of its time, but will be extra corny today. I get that.

Which is precisely why I don't think DS9 is on par with TOS/TNG. It has excellent writing and a great cast, but it sort of goes against Roddenberry's vision - while not doing away with it entirely.

Yeah, Roddenberry was just a guy with some ideas - but since I respect and admire the ideas, I have to respect and admire the show when it stays true to them - and not when it goes against them.

I feel the same way about Tolkien and material based on his work. These guys had something to say - and it rubs me the wrong way when something good is misused for profit.

Of course, people who don't care about the material or staying true to it would have a much easier time enjoying mindless and stupid crap like the new Star Trek. I guess I might have found it entertaining if it didn't shit all over something good while not doing anything worthy of attention in the process.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Which is precisely why I don't think DS9 is on par with TOS/TNG. It has excellent writing and a great cast, but it sort of goes against Roddenberry's vision - while not doing away with it entirely.

Yeah, Roddenberry was just a guy with some ideas - but since I respect and admire the ideas, I have to respect and admire the show when it stays true to them - and not when it goes against them.

It doesn't though. It just shows how the ideal vision can be challenged when questions of survival come to the forefront. The ideals are challenged and there are those who toss them aside, but in the end they don't win out. It also shows how less than ideal people live up to that vision - sometimes in less than ideal ways.

Originally Posted by jhwisner
It doesn't though. It just shows how the ideal vision can be challenged when questions of survival come to the forefront. The ideals are challenged and there are those who toss them aside, but in the end they don't win out. It also shows how less than ideal people live up to that vision - sometimes in less than ideal ways.

Yeah, I think it does - because it reduces many of the characters to current day standards and ways of thinking. That's not to say they're not honorable or admirable people - but that's not really the point.

The point is that the Trek future is very different, and people have evolved beyond what would be considered petty behavior.

I have no interest in a large debate about this - but if you compare Sisko with Picard - it should be very clear. Picard is a very accurate depiction of what Roddenberry had in mind for the future of humanity - and Sisko is more like a modern day noble character with modern day notions. Well, harshly put - but there it is.

I understand that people consider DS9 more plausible - and it certainly would be, if the future doesn't change much. But as a Trek show - I think it goes against Roddenberry at least as much as it gets behind his ideas.

The reason I prefer TNG above all others is that it's the closest to the optimistic future of Trek - and which TOS could never manage to do, because it was made with a lot of pressure and in a completely different environment. Kirk is not a true depiction of a future captain as Roddenberry envisioned one - because he couldn't be under those conditions.

TNG is far from perfect, but they really tried to stay true to the vision and they understood the vision.

DS9 is an attempt at making Trek more plausible and "gritty" - and lots of people fell for it because it seemed easier to relate to. I just don't agree with people that it's better. I also happen to think the resolution of the story arc in the last few episodes was weak and underwhelming.

I was checking to see if any upcoming shows might be worth keeping an eye on, but it really doesn't seem like much new is coming out in the sci-fi genre. At least there doesn't seem to be much that is promising.

Zero Hour might end up being interesting, but its hard to tell what it will actually be about and how sci-fi it will end up being. Defiance will probably be awful since its a weird video-game advertising tie in series. It might surprise me, but syfy original series+video-game tie-in makes me wary.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
DS9 is an attempt at making Trek more plausible and "gritty" - and lots of people fell for it because it seemed easier to relate to. I just don't agree with people that it's better. I also happen to think the resolution of the story arc in the last few episodes was weak and underwhelming.

Yeah the Aurthurian stuff at the end was a bit odd. And alright I get what you're saying if you feel the lead characters deviate from the ideal men and women of Roddenberry's vision. I find flawed heroes more interesting, but I can see how that might not be what one thinks of as part of the proper Trek formula for main characters.

Yeah the Aurthurian stuff at the end was a bit odd. And alright I get what you're saying if you feel the lead characters deviate from the ideal men and women of Roddenberry's vision. I find flawed heroes more interesting, but I can see how that might not be what one thinks of as part of the proper Trek formula for main characters.

I'm not really talking about flawed versus perfect characters. All the characters of TNG are flawed in some ways, but their flaws are the flaws of the depicted future.

They might seem minor to us today, but that's because the standard is different.

So, while I can fully appreciate why people are more engaged by the characters of DS9 and find them more "human" - I think I appreciate the core of Trek more than many - and I can accept that characters will be somewhat harder to relate to because of that.

Also, my favorite character is Spock - and I think his character is the heart of the entire concept of Trek and its future. The struggle between passion and logic - and how focusing on logic is the sacrifice of passion we're going to have to make, to improve the world around us. Something the characters of DS9 are not really willing to do.

4 seasons exist and series are good enough that there will be also series 5 and 6.
It's also available on Netflix.

I can't describe with words why and how did I get hooked on this show, you'll have to check it out yourself. All I can say it's cops for real and not CSI, guns and explosions every single minute of the show.
IMO it's one of the best series about cops I've seen in my life and believe me I've seen a lot of those.
Watch it please, pretty please, before Hollywood makes a silly remake (http://www.spoilertv.com/2012/01/eng…-in-works.html ).

— "Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey

J.Hunter did the pilot, but it took so long for the project to get a green light he changed his mind and Shats got the lead!! The pilot was later reused in a 2 parter about Pike being severely injured.

The pilot was not that bad, considering the time it was released. The idea of exploring humanity by having aliens try to enforce love and happiness was novel.

Spock had a very different vibe in the pilot, as I recall - and I'm glad that was changed.

The Pike version of the captain was a bit too stoic and serious for the material - but I've never considered Shatner a fantastic actor or captain, either. In fact, he's a middling actor - at best. He's got charisma - but one of the flaws of TOS (there are many) is the obscene focus on Kirk and his womanizing.